I noticed israel vazquez was above calzaghe and hatton in the boxrec p4p ratings though losing 4 fights. Just wonder if someone could shed a bit of light on this for me
p4p how does it actually work
p4p how does it actually work
Sorry for being maybe ignorant and ashamed but as a keen boxing fan im not quite sure how p4p works !
I noticed israel vazquez was above calzaghe and hatton in the boxrec p4p ratings though losing 4 fights. Just wonder if someone could shed a bit of light on this for me
I noticed israel vazquez was above calzaghe and hatton in the boxrec p4p ratings though losing 4 fights. Just wonder if someone could shed a bit of light on this for me
-
jamesmcdonnell
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 45233
- Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11
It doesn't.
Instead of thinking of Pound for Pound, I would urge you to think along these lines.
Who are the fighters with the best combination of skills, performances and resume over a long enough period of time, to be considered the best boxers in the world? If you can answer this question, I think that you are going to come up with a good list based on real parameters.
Originally P4P meant 'if these two guys were the same size, who would come out on top' but it ceased to mean anything a long time ago, and never really did anyway.
Instead of thinking of Pound for Pound, I would urge you to think along these lines.
Who are the fighters with the best combination of skills, performances and resume over a long enough period of time, to be considered the best boxers in the world? If you can answer this question, I think that you are going to come up with a good list based on real parameters.
Originally P4P meant 'if these two guys were the same size, who would come out on top' but it ceased to mean anything a long time ago, and never really did anyway.
ok thanks for thatjamesmcdonnell wrote:It doesn't.
Instead of thinking of Pound for Pound, I would urge you to think along these lines.
Who are the fighters with the best combination of skills, performances and resume over a long enough period of time, to be considered the best boxers in the world? If you can answer this question, I think that you are going to come up with a good list based on real parameters.
Originally P4P meant 'if these two guys were the same size, who would come out on top' but it ceased to mean anything a long time ago, and never really did anyway.
just that im not the greatest boxing historian in the world 
and was just wondering how vazquez who had lost 4 could be rated above the mentioned..i was thinking it must be because he had fought better opponents but then thought well why wasnt 1 of his victors on there ..although i dont know who they were ...sorry for the ignorance-
jamesmcdonnell
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 45233
- Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11
There is a tendency to elevate people based on a single big performance.
For instance, when Shane Mosley beat DLH, and then went on to be lauded as a top 5 P4P fighter, and then lost to Vernon Forrest, people went nuts, and made Forrest top 5 P4P, based on beating Mosley, ignoring the fact that he'd done nothing aside from beating that one man to do so, then he gets annihilated by Mayorga, and guess what, some people put Mayorga in the top 5 too.
For instance, when Shane Mosley beat DLH, and then went on to be lauded as a top 5 P4P fighter, and then lost to Vernon Forrest, people went nuts, and made Forrest top 5 P4P, based on beating Mosley, ignoring the fact that he'd done nothing aside from beating that one man to do so, then he gets annihilated by Mayorga, and guess what, some people put Mayorga in the top 5 too.
ah ok mate so its classed on the best fighting the best whos around at the time rather than taking a so called "easier option".jamesmcdonnell wrote:There is a tendency to elevate people based on a single big performance.
For instance, when Shane Mosley beat DLH, and then went on to be lauded as a top 5 P4P fighter, and then lost to Vernon Forrest, people went nuts, and made Forrest top 5 P4P, based on beating Mosley, ignoring the fact that he'd done nothing aside from beating that one man to do so, then he gets annihilated by Mayorga, and guess what, some people put Mayorga in the top 5 too.
-
jamesmcdonnell
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 45233
- Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11
Well, there are no cut and dried rules as such, however my own criteria would be.
1) What level of competition have they engaged in?
2) How long have they been at the top of their division, or divisions if they've weight hopped.
3) What skills do they have
4) How many really impressive performances have they had at elite level.
Someone like Calzaghe rates so highly now, because he has been around at top level for a decade, he has showcased just how good his skills are in recent fights against the best available competition (Lacy and Kessler), and he has just turned back his two most dangerous challengers with something to spare, and in pretty big performances to boot.
1) What level of competition have they engaged in?
2) How long have they been at the top of their division, or divisions if they've weight hopped.
3) What skills do they have
4) How many really impressive performances have they had at elite level.
Someone like Calzaghe rates so highly now, because he has been around at top level for a decade, he has showcased just how good his skills are in recent fights against the best available competition (Lacy and Kessler), and he has just turned back his two most dangerous challengers with something to spare, and in pretty big performances to boot.
I think when trying to work out P4P fighters I tend to look at the range of fighters they have beaten (hear in the mistake on Mosley and Forrist were made). So for example Calzaghe has dominated Kessler and Jeff Lacy who both offer different problems to him which puts him up there. Maywether has shown that he is adaptable both to different styles but also as he moved up in weight he has been able to beat people on skill, without having much power.